W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Please review Note on SMIL accessibility features

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:39:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, ian@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908061833230.16228-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, in response to Harvey Bingham's comments, Marja-Riitta
Koivunen wrote:

  >Example 1 
  >Some browsers may recognize the short endtag of XML only if preceded by
  >I'd change all such to include that space.
  >  <video   src="video.rm" _ /_>
  OK, if necessary.

A conforming XML rendering User Agent doesn't need the space. So I don't
think it's necessary
  >Both examples:
  >have file suffixes   rm and rtx 
  >Unfamiliar to me, unlikely that ".rm" is appropriate for both audio and
  .rm real audio plugin
  .rtx rich text
  Most extensions come directly from SMIL examples but I'm not sure about
  this one. The video could be changed to .mpg (Mpeg).

The values are for URIs, which need not have any file extension - the SMIL
specification explicitly requires the types to be declared rather than
assumed from either the element name or a filename extension. This is lucky -
.rpm is used both by files for the Real Media players and the RedHat Package
Manager. In this case the file extensions are standard ones, but they are not
at all important.

Charles McCN
Received on Friday, 6 August 1999 18:39:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:46 UTC